That BBC quote is complete conjecture. The NAACP called out parts of the tea party as racist because thats what the NAACP has ALWAYS done. The democrats had nothing to do with that. The right reacted by trying to create a "see? blacks are more racist than we are!" moment and it's biting them on the ass. The only thing the dems did wrong was play right into it and can her.

"Blogger Andew Breitbart said he posted it to illustrate that racism exists in the NAACP, an argument he was using to counter allegations by the civil rights organization of racism in the tea party."

This is the actions of just one person.

Put yourself in the shoes of the people who forced her to resign and consider what you would have done if you found out someone who worked for the agricultural department had withheld aid to a farmer on racial grounds. Totally justified imo. It's only when you add the context of Sherrod "learning her lesson" (which she made in her own defense, of course, so it's irrelevant by conflict of interest, much like the officials apologies for firing her) and far more importantly a ton of media attention spurred by the NAACP that it becomes a mistake. I don't doubt they "deeply regretted" doing it, but aside from satisfying the public opinion, I wonder if it's truthfully because it was the wrong thing to do or because of what occurred after it was portrayed by the media.

foolish heart, are you reading what's happened because the way you're explaining your reasoning sounds like you're working from outdated information.

Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.Interpersonal Communication Theories and ConceptsSocial Penetration Theory 1Social Penetration Theory 2Social Penetration Theory 3

but it ONLY comes off as racism if you take Breitbart's edited clip at face value. Any reporter or journalist that would have taken the time to watch the whole thing would have seen that it's the exact opposite of racism and would have called Breitbart out on his deceptive editing.

Instead what you had was everyone in the media freaking out and wanting "the scoop" without doing any kind of background research, which in turn caused USDA to overreact and demand a resignation from Sherrod.

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” -Nietzsche

but it ONLY comes off as racism if you take Breitbart's edited clip at face value. Any reporter or journalist that would have taken the time to watch the whole thing would have seen that it's the exact opposite of racism and would have called Breitbart out on his deceptive editing.

Instead what you had was everyone in the media freaking out and wanting "the scoop" without doing any kind of background research, which in turn caused USDA to overreact and demand a resignation from Sherrod.

Lol... that's my entire point here. The chain of events is getting disproportionate, and there is no distinction between actions and intentions. If you take into account the entire, unedited clip and ignore her intentions, at one point she admits she did in fact withhold aid from a farmer on racial grounds. She did go on to make reparations, but that act still occurred.

Now, when we go to the decision to fire her. They did not have all the information, but of the information they did have their decision was absolutely justified. They also went on to make reparations and offer her job back, but what they did still occurred.

So, putting aside how Sherrod and the people who fired her present themselves in front of cameras, we have two instances of failure, one on racial bigotry and one on negligence. Reparations were made for both instances.

And yet, only the latter is apologizing and being held responsible for a mistake. In light of the circumstances, Sherrod is leveraging the circumstances which would ultimately have not occurred if it wasn't for her mistake in the first place. Honestly, it makes me wonder if she really has overcome her bigotry enough to make her official duties her highest priority, as she seems more concerned about reaching Obama and the white house so they will "understand". So I ask, understand what? There's nothing else to understand unless she's introducing an ulterior agenda. Which is why I think now we're seeing her true colors (no pun intended)... and since that isn't putting her official duties first, then she isn't fit for the position anyways.

Contrast this with Obama, who makes it quite apparent through his actions that his duties as president come first, even if he did have an NAACP-related agenda.

You wanna know what I think what really happened? Official is reading one of his favorited right-wing blogs and spots this video, shows a major lack of judgement and spreads the word. She gets strong armed into resignation, called up her buddies at the NAACP for help (they would understand, considering it was their rally and they'd know the truth about her message, right?) but they throw her under the bus because this undermines their agenda as it was presented. But after some fact checking (which, sadly, should have been done first by officials before any of this) they realize there is opportunity to spin this around for major publicity and blow the media whistle.

You wanna know what I think what really happened? Official is reading one of his right-wing blogs and spots this video, shows a major lack of judgement and spreads the word. She gets strong armed into resignation, called up her buddies at the NAACP for help (they would understand, considering it was their rally and they'd know the truth about her message, right?) but they throw her under the bus because this undermines their agenda as it was presented. But after some fact checking (which, sadly, should have been done first by officials before any of this) they realize there is opportunity to spin this around for major publicity and blow the media whistle.

I think that predetermined stance is what is coloring your analysis of this situation.

Originally Posted by foolish heart

....The article says she feels no need for Obama to apologize. "Secretary Robert Gibbs... apologized to Sherrod for the entire administration." What about all the other [white] officials making apologies who were not responsible for the decision? Seems like Obama was distanced, yet she continues to focus on him in her statements.

d00d.... the story is CRAFTED. You have no idea what she was asked or not asked. You only see the bits of information someone crafted into a story, and they threw out the rest. You have no flarking idea what else she said, or who else she wanted an apology from ... and remember, maybe they just point blank focused on Obama. None of us here have access to that information.

You're as much a pwn as anyone else.

Originally Posted by oberon

Sherrod was Borked.

For the younger ones out there who don't know, that's a reference to Federal judge Robert Bork, who was a candidate for a Supreme Court seat once upon a time. Y'all can probably Google up the story for yourselves.

Yeah, pretty much. Us old farts have seen it all before.

"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

I don't think it could be called predetermined... actually, it just kinda came together when I was finish writing the previous part so I threw it in there at the end. What it is is conjecture, though, since obviously I wasn't there and don't know exactly how things transpired, so feel free to ignore it.

You can see how things transpired when you watch Sherrod's entire film clip. You can see if you compare Fox news the day before and the day after, how they completely flipped. Your information is not current about the ascertainable facts. No disrespect intended whatsoever.

You can see how things transpired when you watch Sherrod's entire film clip. You can see if you compare Fox news the day before and the day after, how they completely flipped. Your information is not current about the ascertainable facts. No disrespect intended whatsoever.

I don't think you're getting my gist. I fully understand that the original clip was edited, and the full clip reveals Sherrod's intended message which isn't focused on the discrimination towards the farmer which was part of the inspiration for her message.

But to add to your point, the NAACP totally flipped as well. Although, contrary to my conjecture, it looks like they contacted her.

"Sherrod said the NAACP did not contact her before issuing the first statement. She said she got a phone call from an NAACP representative in Washington on Tuesday afternoon telling her another statement would be issued once the full tape was reviewed." -CNN.com

No disrespect taken. This is a highly political topic so ultimately the only important matter is trying to determine the truth, which means looking beyond the spin... so if there's some ascertainable fact that I'm overlooking then I'd like to know just as much as you.

Originally Posted by William K

But she wasn't with the Agricultural department when she 'sinned'. She was a 17 year old working for a non-profit. And she certainly wasn't part of the NAACP then.

I understand it seems harsh, but that actually doesn't matter. Even public officials at much lower "ranks" undergo rigorous background checks that cover their entire lifetime. Remember, it's about having the duty of that position filled as best as possible, not how inspiring Sherrod's ascent into her position is... so it's appropriate for this amount of scrutiny to be leveled towards public officials to find any sort of flaw that makes them inadequate. Especially at this level, there is simply too much at stake. I'm not saying this fact about her means she's unfit, that is not something I would know, but simply because the farmer incident was before she began doesn't make it irrelevant.

What I was saying about her being unfit is based on how she reacted to the present situation--how that revealed something about her agenda that (IMO) doesn't align with the duties of her position (hence... maybe she should go with her real agenda and not return to office?). This is totally my opinion, and of course it doesn't matter because it's up to her appointers to determine what qualifies or disqualifies someone for that office. It's far more in favor of her returning to the position because at the present time she was performing her duties apparently quite well. Unfortunately, even with that political agenda runs amuck... before the NAACP threw her under the bus, the white house supposedly did probably because their agenda is so sensitive about its race-neutrality.

I wish the white house, as the leading office, would go beyond race-neutrality and strive towards true political neutrality. Probably impossible, but we need them to remain rock solid in their reasoning and decision making without being swayed one way or another by all the ulterior agendas and anything less than 100% dedication to the duties of the office they were sworn to... there is too much power in their hands to use it with partiality. If they had done that here, she would have not been asked to resign under duress and this whole mess would have been handled correctly. *sigh* I guess that can't happen, cause you gotta play politics to remain a politician.